Here's The latest in the continuing saga of Rand on the Skywire, trying to inch along the tightrope between libertarians and conservatives towards the GOP nomination on the other side.

Love him or hate him, the 2016 debates will be roughly 8,000 percent more interesting with him onstage than they would be otherwise.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told ABC News he believes the Supreme Court ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act was appropriate, and that the issue should be left to the states. He praised Justice Anthony Kennedy for avoiding a cultural war.

As a country we can agree to disagree, Paul said today, stopping for a moment to talk as he walked through the Capitol. As a Republican Party, thats kind of where we are as well. The party is going to have to agree to disagree on some of these issues.…

Paul said he agreed with Kennedy, whom he called someone who doesnt just want to be in front of opinion but wants government to keep up with opinion. He said Kennedy tried to strike a balance.

Many social conservatives won’t be happy to hear him talking about leaving things to the states, and they really won’t be happy with him waving off the culture war, but they were never Paul’s target constituency in the first place. If you’re a young, bridge-building, aspiring GOP nominee, the politic answer here is obvious: Support traditional marriage at the state level and oppose any lawmaking on the subject at the federal level. Be a socially conservative small-government federalist and hope that both social cons and moderate/libertarians each cut you enough of a break on your middle-ground position that the Skywire doesn’t sway too much. That’s the smart play for someone in Rand’s position (at least until he makes it to the general, when any misgivings about gay marriage at the state level will begin magically to melt away). Just one question: Does he support state traditional marriage laws at the state level? I honestly can’t tell. This morning he told Glenn Beck this:

I think traditional marriage laws are now affirmed in 34 states, the Kentucky Republican said on Glenn Becks radio show Wednesday morning, calling it the good side of the ruling.

Social issues are another area where he thinks Republicans can make a better argument to independents and centrists without departing from their principles. Gay marriage, for instance, is one issue on which Paul would like to shake up the Republican position. Im an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage, he says. That being said, Im not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesnt mention marriage. Then we dont have to redefine what marriage is; we just dont have marriage in the tax code.

As I said at the time, that’s the sort of thing you often hear from libertarians who want the government, and not just the federal government, out of the marriage business altogether. I don’t think Rand could get away with that position in a GOP primary, which is why I assume he’s still nominally in favor of state marriage laws. Whether he’d have an Obama-esque “evolution” in support of liberalizing those laws to include gays once safely elected, though, I leave to you to decide.

Via Noah Rothman, here he is with Beck having a not-especially-libertarian exchange about whether legalizing gay marriage necessarily means legalizing polygamy. Beck’s more concerned about that than Paul is — Rand clarified what he said here about non-humans later in the day, in fact — but he does seem to see some hazy role for government in legislating morality. Some of his dad’s fans won’t like that, but plenty of mainstream conservatives will.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) today released the following statement on the Supreme Courts decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and Californias Proposition 8:

Todays Supreme Court decisions on marriage are a regrettable overreach against the will of the people as expressed through large, bipartisan majorities in Congress and directly through referendum in California  a markedly blue state.

Nothing in the Constitution compelled this result, and, once again, the Court has chosen to substitute its own views of public policy for the democratically expressed will of the voters.

The family is the fundamental building block of society, and I strongly support traditional marriage between one man and one woman. The voters of California made that same choice, until the courts improperly substituted their preferences for those of the people.

Our Federalism allows different states to make different policy judgments based on the values and mores of their citizens. Federal courts should respect that diversity and uphold that popular sovereignty, not impose their own policy agenda.

Military chaplains will now be forced to violate their conscience
I hope Rand realizes that. All chaplains should abdicate in disgust. That will take out a lot of the religious service members too, who don’t want to be in the field without spiritual counsel.

doma WAS the law that left it up to the states, it kept the federal govt from having a national “yes” on the issue. by having a “no” position at the federal level it allowed states to have either a no or yes position.

Rand is actually right about this -- and I said exactly the same thing back in the 1990s when the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was first passed into law.

Anyone with an objective view of the U.S. Constitution would come to this same conclusion, and I'm kind of disappointed that so many Freepers missed this point all along. There is simply nothing that gives the Federal government any role in establishing a legal (or other) definition of marriage.

Contrary to a lot of conventional wisdom on this matter and on the Supreme Court decision, the next logical step in this process is not the complete transformation of the legal definition of marriage across the country. Rather, it will be the complete eradication of anything remotely resembling "marriage" under any Federal law -- followed by the same process in many states.

Keep in mind that the plaintiff in the original case brought before the Supreme Court was an elderly lesbian who claimed that she deserved the same legal status under Federal estate tax law as a married heterosexual couple. The Supreme Court agreed with her. I say good for her, and then I say I should be next up to the plate in the same legal challenge against the estate tax. If an octogenarian lesbian can leave a tax-free estate to her "spouse," then the same tax exemption should be given to anyone who gets "married" -- to his cousin, his drinking buddy, or a business partner -- for the sole purpose of circumventing the Federal estate tax.

I can guarantee everyone here that there are hundreds of CPAs and tax lawyers hard at work right now trying to figure out how to work this ruling in their clients' favor -- in ways that nobody in Washington, D.C. ever even imagined.

There is simply nothing that gives the Federal government any role in establishing a legal (or other) definition of marriage.

Isn't that what they just did. I think you miss the obvious. Your line is reasoning is severely flawed. Here is an example of where your opinion must necessarily lead one. IF today the issue as regards God came to be debated THEN how on Earth could the Feds, the States or the People claim that we are endowed inalienable rights? How could the 'decide' as you suggest such an issue; a FUNDAMENTAL issue such as God's existence and the rights endowed all?

I would suggest that DOMA was neither a political conclusion imposed nor a determination alleged and codified BUT RATHER simply an acknowledgement proclaimed much as the acknowledgement proclaimed as to God. The government did not create God nor did it create Marriage. DOMA was no more an imposition imposed upon the States that inalienable rights are an imposition imposed upon government.

I look at marriage like one might look at conception of life. The government should not define it regulate it or limit it but simply acknowledge it to protect it. No-fault divorce in my opinion is comparable to abortion. In both cases government stepped in and added 50 shades of gray to what should be black or white issues THEN premised upon the created gray areas began to define and regulate.

If you can find the word "God" anywhere in the Defense of Marriage Act, then please cite it for me.

The DOMA was exactly what I -- and many other conservatives -- correctly said it was when it was first passed into law: blatant, calculated political pandering at its worst. The Republicans passed the bill in both houses of Congress. Bill Clinton signed it into law in September 1996 for the sole purpose of appealing to moderate voters in his re-election bid less than two months later.

That same jack@ss Clinton said recently that it was a "bad law" -- even though he signed it into law. He has no problem maintaining a position of such two-faced hypocrisy because he was as unprincipled (and unserious) a man as you'll ever meet even in Washington.

I'm not a fan of RINO Rand Paul. But not only have the states never delegated to Congress via the Constitution the specific power to regulate marriage in any way, but DOMA was arguably a violation of the Constitution's Clause 3 of Article VI which prohibits religous tests for federal employees.

Article VI, Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States (emphasis added).

Keep in mind that the institution of marriage became a complete farce in this country once government got involved in it. Heck -- in every state you have an entire area of law (marital/divorce law) that is dedicated to the countless numbers of cases where a marriage contract is broken (even by one of the two parties) with the full approval of a court.

If any other area of law worked that badly it wouldn't even exist in the first place. Would anyone even bother signing a contract to buy a home, for example, if the guy who sold it to you could come back 15 years later and make you give it back to him? ROFL.

I just find it kind of sleazy when the American people vote on something and five creeps wearing black robes say, “Oh no you don’t”. I don’t think that’s the America that the Founding Fathers had in mind.

The DOMA was exactly what I -- and many other conservatives -- correctly said it was when it was first passed into law: blatant, calculated political pandering at its worst.

IMHO you are getting hung up on proving and support your initially concluded point and as such you miss the forest for the trees.. It could be that Clinton was pandering. I would agree that MOST politicians are simply leaves blowing in the wind that will take the path of least resistance.

HOWEVER, while dismissing the spineless and unprincipled politicos I think you as well errantly dismiss the motivations of PEOPLE they were attempting to pander to.

As an example look at the Immigration Reform debate. The politicians who pander by seeking to build a border fence or hire more Border Patrol agents do so BECAUSE the laws already in place are not being enforced.

I would suggest that DOMA at its roots was a response to the clear and present danger of leftists IMPOSING a new definition of marriage around the country. A definition that as I mentioned before is in God's domain alone.

The country faces this question more and more now with Obama in office. WHAT do you do to oppose those that not only ignore the laws but as well subvert them. Write new laws? LOL!!!

This issue is getting more and more “settled” by the day — but without any real consequence beyond what has already been in the works for a long time. Homosexuals are clamoring for the right to get married even as heterosexuals have been walking away from marriage for decades.

Part of Paul’s statements make no sense. Putting aside the merits of the case and the questions about federalism, Paul says that Kennedy averted a Culture War. How? By issuing a decision applauded by the Left? He seems to be endorsing the absurd notion that to use the courts to advance a liberal policy goal is somehow being neutral in the Culture War.

And the Sup Court has not reaffirmed the right of the states to define marriage. The statements by Roberts that the decision goes no further is meaningless. As Scalia pointed out, the reasoning used by Kennedy leaves virtually no room to allow traditional state marriage laws to persist. It’s just a matter of time before this Court or another takes Kennedy’s thinking to its logical conclusion and imposes gay marriage nationwide.

Sure -- but let's take it one step further: The court's reasoning pretty much throws every state marriage law ("traditional" or not) -- including same-sex marriage laws -- right out the window.

If equal protection under the law means anything, then anyone can enter into a relationship with another person (or multiple people), call it a "marriage," and then tell the IRS to go "F#%& off!" when it comes time to pay an estate tax.

Mark my words on this, folks -- the legal and accounting professions are going to do wonders for their clients under this Supreme Court ruling.

This issue is getting more and more settled by the day  but without any real consequence beyond what has already been in the works for a long time. Homosexuals are clamoring for the right to get married even as heterosexuals have been walking away from marriage for decades.

You lost me there. It seems you support a moral relative determination of truth e.g. the definition of marriage?

For example as it relates to government not defining but rather upholding INSTEAD of the definition of marriage we discussed the definition of life (to use your argument):

This issue is getting more and more settled by the day  but without any real consequence beyond what has already been in the works for a long time. Euthanists are clamoring for the right to Euthanize even as People have been increasingly committing suicide for decades.

Reflects my views precisely. IF they leave this pretty much to the states I have no problem. Let the dykes and faggots gravitate to California and Massachussetts and other such locales and leave the other states less infected. Win. Win.

If California wants to let people marry their cocker spaniels, more power to them. Maybe when enough homosexuals and animal lovers have migrated there, it will fall into the ocean from the weight of them.

America is not going to have a situation where some families are ghettoized into half the states, and their marriage and family not recognized in others, or when they enlist, or work for the federal government.

44
posted on 06/26/2013 7:44:46 PM PDT
by ansel12
(Libertarians, Gays = in all marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.)

My point is that the government (at any level) really never had any business getting itself involved in a religious institution like marriage in the first place. The whole idea of a "marriage license," for example, has no place in a free nation.

People with strong religious convictions have known this for a very long time.

The Federal government should spend their time doing what they are Constitutionally mandated to do and leave the rest to the States. Instead, they don't secure the border and talk about "amnesty", for example, and when the states step in to fill the gap, the Feds shut that down, too.

I didn't read anything in my copy of the US Constitution saying the Government could place its blessing on a twisted parody of the Sacrament of Marriage.

48
posted on 06/26/2013 8:14:42 PM PDT
by Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.